ANIMAL
PEOPLE
is
the
leading
independent
newspaper
providing
original
investigative
coverage
of
animal
protection
worldwide.
Founded
in
1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE has
no
alignment
or
affiliation
with
any
other
entity.

ESSENTIAL
DESTINATIONS

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

Bring breeders of high-risk dogs to heel

On January 5, the first regular business
day of 2004, New York City Center for Animal Care and
Control director Ed Boks and actress-turned-animal
advocate Bernadette Peters tried to make
pit bull terriers more adoptable by announcing that henceforth
they would be offered for adoption as “New Yorkies.”
The scheme lasted less than three days.

Having worked long and hard to rehabilitate the
image of New York City, the tourist industry
wanted no part of any potential association with gangs, drugs, and hostile
behavior. “
I think it would create a bad image for New Yorkers,” public relations
executive Howard Rubenstein told Heidi Singer of the New York Daily News. “Our
bark is worse than our bite. With pit bulls, their bite is worse than their
bark.”
Representing media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, casino baron Donald Trump, hotelier
Leona Helmsley, and New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, among others,
Rubenstein, 67, is among the acknowledged New York City power brokers. When
Rubenstein speaks, City Hall listens.

Animal shelter experts around the U.S., called
for comment, remembered the 1996 attempt by
the San Francisco SPCA to re-invent pit bulls by calling them “St.
Francis terriers.”

About 60 “St. Francis terriers” were placed during the next few
months, after extensive screening and training, but then-SF/SPCA president
Richard Avanzino
reluctantly suspended the program after several of the re-dubbed dogs killed
cats.

The SF/SPCA still adopts out pit bulls, unlike
many shelters which have seen liability insurance
premiums soar with each new pit bull attack. But
the
fallibility of the SF/SPCA program was illustrated on November 23, 2003,
when SF/SPCA volunteer
dog training instructor Anna Klafter, 27, illegally allowed her four-year-old
pit bull Nettie to run off-leash in Golden Gate Park. Klafter was seen
by mounted police sergeant David Herrera, who shouted to her to retrieve
and
leash Nettie.
Nettie, who was adopted from the SF/SPCA, bit Herrera’s horse,
named AAA Andy, on the legs and along his rib cage. Bleeding from multiple
wounds, AAA
Andy bucked Herrera off, kicked Klafter in the face as she tried to recapture
Nettie, and bolted for half a mile with Nettie in hot pursuit. Police
sergeant Peter Dacre finally stopped Nettie with two gunshots. Nettie
survived and was
eventually returned to Klafter, who was fined.

At least two women in the greater New York City
metropolitan area were killed by adopted dogs
during 2003. Nancy Delaney, of Cortlandt Manor, New
York, adopted a two-year-old pit bull from the Mount
Vernon Animal Shelter
on April 6. Five weeks later, Briarcliff Manor SPCA
president Mimi Einstein described the pit bull to
Marcela Rojas of the White Plains Journal News as “very friendly,
sweet,” with “no sign of aggression whatever.”

That was after he killed Delaney’s housemate Bonnie Page, 75, on May
16, attacking from another room for no evident reason and without visible warning,
inflicting multiple bites to Delaney as well as Page when Delaney
tried to stop
him.

The second fatal attack, not witnessed, came on
September 7. Valerie DeSwart, 67, was killed at her home in Medford,
New Jersey, by a
three-year-old Doberman she had adopted 10 days earlier from the
Associated Humane
Societies shelter
in Newark, New Jersey. Associated Humane received the dog from
a woman who said he had bitten her and paid $55 to have him euthanized--which was
not done, apparently because someone at the shelter thought he was an adoption
candidate.

DeSwart was only the third person killed by a Doberman
in the 22 years that ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton has
recorded breed-specific
data on
life-threatening and fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada--during which time pit
bulls and pit bull mixes kept as pets have killed 75 people, Rottweilers and
Rottweiler mixes kept as pets have killed 50, and wolf hybrids have killed 17.
All other breeds combined have killed just 60.

By coincidence, Boks and Peters announced their “New Yorkie” project
just as Clifton e-mailed to American SPCA president Ed Sayres
a suggestion that the ASPCA should reverse a 20-year-old policy of opposition
to breed-specific
regulation.

Then-ASPCA president John Kullberg, now deceased,
introduced the policy in 1984, when the New York City health
department
first
tried to ban
the possession
of
pit bulls. Although a pit bull ban was eventually declared,
it was never effectively enforced, and was eventually enforced
only
in public
housing.

Borrowing arguments long made on behalf of Dobermans
by the American Kennel Club, Kullberg argued that breed-specific
legislation would unjustly discriminate
against
stereotypes, rather than responding to actual behavioral
traits.

Following the lead of the ASPCA, the Humane Society
of the U.S. soon adopted a similar policy, which became the
prevailing
view
of the
animal advocacy
community, despite many expressions of contrary opinion
from animal control agencies and
local humane societies.

By 1993 pit bulls kept as pets, exclusive of dogs
trained to fight, already accounted for more
than half of all life-threatening dog
attacks. Rottweilers
accounted
for 20%. Over the past decade the number of life-threatening
pit bull attacks was up 789%; attacks on children were
up
876%; attacks
on adults
were up 490%;
fatalities
were up 388%; and maimings were up 1269%. The percentage
of total life-threatening dog attacks committed by pit bulls
did not go up only because the
number of life-threatening
Rottweiler
attacks
leaped
2000%; attacks on children were up 1000%; attacks on
adults were up 1700%; fatalies were up 2500%; and maimings
were
up 2500%.
Rottweilers now account
for 25% of
all life-threateningdog attacks.
No other common breeds present an even remotely comparable
actuarial risk factor. Yet among all the major U.S.
animal advocacy groups,
only PETA
has favored
a breed-specific approach to dog regulation.
Wrote PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk in a January 2000
syndicated column, “From
San Jose to Schenectady, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic
destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of ‘pits’ they
encounter. This news shocks and outrages the compassionate
dog-lover.

“
Here’s another shocker: People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, the very people who are trying
to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for
the table, foxes for fur, or frogs for dissection,
supports the pit bull policy, albeit with reluctance.

“
Pit bulls are perhaps the most abused dogs on the planet,” Newkirk continued,
citing examples, but concluded that “Those
who argue against the euthanasia policy for pit
bulls are naive...Many are loving and will kiss
on sight, but
many are unpredictable. An unpredictable chihuahua
is one thing, an unpredictable pit another.

“
People who genuinely care about dogs won’t be affected
by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save
one of the countless other breeds and lovable
mutts sitting on death row through no fault of
their own. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating
new ones. Legislators, please take note.”
ANIMAL PEOPLE publisher Kim Bartlett sought middle
ground at the 2002 Conference on Homeless Animal
Management and Policy
in Hartford,
Connecticut.

“
I believe that pitbulls have a more negative reputation than most members of
the breed deserve,” she wrote afterward. “Because I feel very sorry
for these dogs and also felt that pitbull rescuers deserved a forum, I put together
a panel on pit bulls. It was meant to be balanced, so people with more conservative
views on pitbulls were on the panel as well as those who had extreme views. The
result: the pitbull rescuers insulted the people--animal rescuers
all--who had any reservations about the breed whatever. I expressed
mixed feelings about pit bulls, and so was labeled ‘enemy.’ Mind
you, no one on the panel, and certainly not
me as the panel moderator, favored arbitrarily
killing pit bulls.

“
I have an uneasy feeling that a lot of people claiming to be pitbull rescuers
are pitbull breeders,” Bartlett continued. “Otherwise why would they
oppose breeding bans that would not affect dogs already born? I think it is unethical
to breed any dogs, or cats, so long as they are being killed for population control.
I would rather dogs, as well as cats and other animals, were not bred at all
for human purposes. Since pit bulls clearly can be more dangerous to humans and
other animals, and are more difficult to handle than most other dogs, and--most
importantly--since they attract ‘owners’ who only want
to exploit and abuse them, then for the dogs’ own
good, why do their purported rescuers not
want to see an end to breeding them?”

Actuarial risk

Clifton recommended to Sayres that the ASPCA
should favor regulation which takes into
account actuarial
risk. Actuarial
risk is
the payout per insurance
claim
relative to the investment of insurees,
and is the foundation concept that makes the
insurance industry
possible.

Most dog attack claims are paid through
homeowners or renters liability policies,
and are settled
for under
$5,000, but
settlements in
attacks causing death
or maiming typically exceed $500,000.
Pit bulls and Rottweilers do three times more
killing and maiming than all other
dogs combined, meaning that their actuarial
risk is approximately
3000% higher
than that
of the average
dog, yet because
actuarial risk has not been calculated
on a
breed-specific basis, guardians of
pit bulls and Rottweilers
have rarely been asked
to pay premiums
higher than
anyone else. Thus everyone who insures
a home or rented premises in effect
subsidizes the
possession and proliferation
of
pit bulls and
Rottweilers.

ANIMAL PEOPLE has pointed out since
1993 that if the humane community
does not accept
and
encourage breed-specific
legislation in a
manner that takes
the profit
out of pit bull and Rottweiler proliferation,
pit
bulls and Rottweilers will proliferate
until they pose an
actuarial risk so high that
the insurance industry responds in
a much more sweeping and
deadly manner.

This has now happened. Sidestepping
confrontation with animal advocates
over breed-specific
policies, at least
nine major
insurance companies
now red-line
all dogs they consider comparable
to pit bulls and Rottweilers, whether
or not their
breeds
pose actual
comparable risk.

By arguing that pit bulls and Rottweilers
behave like any other dog, animal
advocates have persuaded
much
of the
insurance industry that
any large
dog is too risky
to cover, and have persuaded
many other insurers that anyone who
keeps a large
dog should
pay premiums based
overwhelmingly
on the
deeds of
pit bulls
and
Rottweilers.

This attitude unjustly penalizes
herding dogs such as collies
and German shepherds,
who bite
more
often than
other big
dogs, but
whose “holding” or “guiding
nip” to an arm or ankle
rarely does serious injury.
It discriminates
even more
unfairly against Labradors
and golden retrievers, who
register in bite counts
at much less than their proportion
of the
dog population.

It is time to stop pretending
that all dogs are created
equal, and
instead take
the lead
in seeking
legislation
which recognizes
that
some breeds
are in fact
enormously more dangerous
than others--just as legislation
recognizes that a
puma or African lion or even
a 20-pound bobcat must be
regulated differently from a ten-pound
tabby.
This is what
would be
most fair to all dogs and
all people who keep dogs.

The humane community should
also stop promulgating
claims that “canine
profiling has not been proven effective in preventing dog bites,” and that
insurers “should
look at the individual
bite history of each dog
when deciding
whether to provide coverage.”

First, “preventing dog bites” is
not at all the same issue
as preventing actuarial risk, since most bites do not
even result in insurance
claims, and confusing the two does an enormous disservice
to
the overwhelming majority
of dogs.

Second, encouraging insurance
companies to “look at the individual bite
history of each dog” is
unrealistic in considering
actuarial risk, since
most life-threatening
and fatal attacks
by pit
bulls, Rottweilers,
and wolf hybrids are
the first known incidents
involving
those dogs.

There is a close analogy
here to insuring
motorcyclists. Motorcyclists, on average,
are no more likely
to be involved in
an accident than anyone
else
who drives.
They pay much higher
insurance premiums
simply because
it is an
actuarial
fact that a motorcyclist
who is
in an accident
is far
more likely
to be killed or
injured. As it is
not fair for every driver
to subsidize
the
extraordinary risk
incurred by those
who choose to
drive motorcycles,
motorcyclists pay
premiums at two or three times
the
rate of other drivers.

Clifton forwarded
to Ed Boks these
arguments
and
many
pages of supporting
data.
“
We have decided to scrap the ‘New Yorkie’ idea
for a variety of reasons, and your data helps substantiate
our decision,” Boks
responded early
on January 8. That was an about-face in the right direction.
Moving
decisively
to
discourage breeding
pit bulls, Rottweilers,
and any
other dogs of demonstrably
high
actuarial risk
should be next,
to help
the tens
of thousands
of other
large
dogs in
shelters find homes,
to help those now
in homes
to stay
there instead of
becoming uninsurable,
and most
of all,
to keep future
generations of
high-risk dogs
from ever entering
shelters, by keeping
them from being
born.